Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Trillion dollar mineral reserves discovered in Afghanistan

Wow...How the hell does one go about setting something up with this with them having such a weak central government?

send in a multinational corporation. Easier to do with weak central govt.

Or just do what the chinese did and bribe someone for 30 mill. Again, startlingly easy to do with a weak central govt.

Yeah it doesn't seem like there will be a good outcome, which is a shame because news like this should be treated as a godsend, and not the first step in an inevitable scandal.

Huh. Israeli inquiry into the flotilla killings has got David Trimble on it as one of their international observers. I'll be curious to see if he says much and how he handles the role. I'm not quite sure which way he'd jump. As a unionist he's fairly conservative, but he must have seen enough dodgy shite over the years in the north to know when it's wise to fess up quickly.

Then again, he's also the guy who advised blair that in the event that the new inquiry into bloody sunday differed in any way from the original findings, it would result in english soldiers on trial and have explosive consequences for the north. And we're about to find out if he's right in that regard.

The discovery of the minerals raises the stakes and even further complicates the politics. OTOH it should create an incentive for peace: stop fighting, get rich. If not the Taliban freaks themselves, all the tribes presumably could be more easily bought off now. Give them equity or give them death!

That Petreus is in charge is a good thing; he's all about buying off the non-implacable bad guys.

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]wool-gathering[/youtube]

Alabama political ads

I think this one is more embarrassing than the one about not believing in evolution

wow

He's like Belushi raving about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor - only presumably Barber's proxy is serious

I thought southerners got all suspicious when somebody talked as fast as that guy

jerseyhoya wrote:Trillion dollar mineral reserves discovered in Afghanistan

Wow...How the hell does one go about setting something up with this with them having such a weak central government?

From the NYTimes account:

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry....

That Karzai's such a sucker

And speaking of sucker punchees, CT's Rob Simmons is back up off the mat...sort of

Why do the t-boys never mention that the colonists protested taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION? Now, in all honesty, I doubt Hancock, Sam Adams, and the like, gave a damn about representation, they just wanted $$$ in their pockets. Still, the whole crux of their argument was that they had no elected representatives. Also, the Tea Act was more about lifting barriers to free trade, not imposing more taxation. If anything, it would have made tea cheaper in the colonies.

Also, I'm not sure I want to vote for a guy who believes that he's having councils with Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdjOVcdT7FU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Augustus wrote:Why do the t-boys never mention that the colonists protested taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION? Now, in all honesty, I doubt Hancock, Sam Adams, and the like, gave a damn about representation, they just wanted $$$ in their pockets. Still, the whole crux of their argument was that they had no elected representatives. Also, the Tea Act was more about lifting barriers to free trade, not imposing more taxation. If anything, it would have made tea cheaper in the colonies.

Also, I'm not sure I want to vote for a guy who believes that he's having councils with Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington.

The real problem with all this rhetoric is it's based on a fiction that "The Founders" from Tom Paine to Alexander Hamilton all agreed about the fundamentals of government. They did not. The disagreements were profound--Burr murdered Hamilton in part over political differences. Adams (and lots of others) hated Paine. It's pretty clear from reading Madison's and Hamilton's writings that they would have favored a much stronger central government had one been politically feasible at the time, but nevertheless, the US Constitution was a step in the direction of a stronger national government, one that many hoped and expected would continue to strengthen as the need for such became more obvious.

Even if all that weren't true, it's incredibly stupid to base a political movement on the idea that a few guys (smart guys to be sure) could somehow design a government that would be equally suitable to an isolated, largely agrarian backwater to a highly sophisticated post industrial superpower.

TenuredVulture wrote:The real problem with all this rhetoric is it's based on a fiction that "The Founders" from Tom Paine to Alexander Hamilton all agreed about the fundamentals of government. They did not. The disagreements were profound--Burr murdered Hamilton in part over political differences. Adams (and lots of others) hated Paine. It's pretty clear from reading Madison's and Hamilton's writings that they would have favored a much stronger central government had one been politically feasible at the time, but nevertheless, the US Constitution was a step in the direction of a stronger national government, one that many hoped and expected would continue to strengthen as the need for such became more obvious.

Even if all that weren't true, it's incredibly stupid to base a political movement on the idea that a few guys (smart guys to be sure) could somehow design a government that would be equally suitable to an isolated, largely agrarian backwater to a highly sophisticated post industrial superpower.

As you say, a not-especially-close reading of history underscores how stupid that sentimental conception is, which would seem to mean that either the loudest Tea Party exponents are stupid - which seems unlikely - or that they are intentionally pushing the sub-rational buttons of a particular cadre of the politically (and emotionally, and spiritually) conservative.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The real problem with all this rhetoric is it's based on a fiction that "The Founders" from Tom Paine to Alexander Hamilton all agreed about the fundamentals of government. They did not. The disagreements were profound--Burr murdered Hamilton in part over political differences. Adams (and lots of others) hated Paine. It's pretty clear from reading Madison's and Hamilton's writings that they would have favored a much stronger central government had one been politically feasible at the time, but nevertheless, the US Constitution was a step in the direction of a stronger national government, one that many hoped and expected would continue to strengthen as the need for such became more obvious.

Even if all that weren't true, it's incredibly stupid to base a political movement on the idea that a few guys (smart guys to be sure) could somehow design a government that would be equally suitable to an isolated, largely agrarian backwater to a highly sophisticated post industrial superpower.

As you say, a not-especially-close reading of history underscores how stupid that sentimental conception is, which would seem to mean that either the loudest Tea Party exponents are stupid - which seems unlikely - or that they are intentionally pushing the sub-rational buttons of a particular cadre of the politically (and emotionally, and spiritually) conservative.

I think it's the latter, but I don't think there's anything conservative about it. Indeed, I think it's quite the opposite of conservative. That is, the T-Party movement really does have Tom Paine and Robespierre in its political ancestry, not Burke and Madison.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The real problem with all this rhetoric is it's based on a fiction that "The Founders" from Tom Paine to Alexander Hamilton all agreed about the fundamentals of government. They did not. The disagreements were profound--Burr murdered Hamilton in part over political differences. Adams (and lots of others) hated Paine. It's pretty clear from reading Madison's and Hamilton's writings that they would have favored a much stronger central government had one been politically feasible at the time, but nevertheless, the US Constitution was a step in the direction of a stronger national government, one that many hoped and expected would continue to strengthen as the need for such became more obvious.

Even if all that weren't true, it's incredibly stupid to base a political movement on the idea that a few guys (smart guys to be sure) could somehow design a government that would be equally suitable to an isolated, largely agrarian backwater to a highly sophisticated post industrial superpower.

As you say, a not-especially-close reading of history underscores how stupid that sentimental conception is, which would seem to mean that either the loudest Tea Party exponents are stupid - which seems unlikely - or that they are intentionally pushing the sub-rational buttons of a particular cadre of the politically (and emotionally, and spiritually) conservative.

I think it's the latter, but I don't think there's anything conservative about it. Indeed, I think it's quite the opposite of conservative. That is, the T-Party movement really does have Tom Paine and Robespierre in its political ancestry, not Burke and Madison.

Hence "The Tea Party Jacobins," probably the best thing I've read on the subject.

But while they're incoherent and obnoxious, I do cherish a little hope that just as the Perot movement in '92 helped create space for the Clinton administration and Republican Congress to move toward greater responsibility over the rest of that decade, the 'baggers are inadvertently doing the same with respect to spending. The broad contours of a solution (entitlement adjustments, military spending cuts, tax reform) are so immediately evident that all it will take is a little maturity on the part of the political class.

Then again, watching Hoyer and Boehner hissing at each other on ABC yesterday morning had me aching for Jake Tapper to yell, "This is why the country totally hates you guys."

On a plane from O'Hare to DCA that was already delayed 1 hour...rolled out of the gate and then stopped while trying to get on the runway. The pilot came on and said there were 30 planes ahead of us and we were going to power down for 30 min and wait in line. The seatbelt sign was turned off and passengers walked about. One of the passengers, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, walked to the back of the plane. 5 minutes later the pilot came on the loud speaker and said, "folks we've been given the go ahead to take off." As Leahy walked backed to his seat someone said "thanks Senator!" to which he replied "the pilot said he'd do his best." Chairman Leahy rules!

A Democratic Hill staffer emailed this to Politico approvingly. The mind reels.

Candidate May Have Lied About Heroic Death In Vietnam

"Chris Wilfred is the man for the job," Riggs continued. "God rest his soul."

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The real problem with all this rhetoric is it's based on a fiction that "The Founders" from Tom Paine to Alexander Hamilton all agreed about the fundamentals of government. They did not. The disagreements were profound--Burr murdered Hamilton in part over political differences. Adams (and lots of others) hated Paine. It's pretty clear from reading Madison's and Hamilton's writings that they would have favored a much stronger central government had one been politically feasible at the time, but nevertheless, the US Constitution was a step in the direction of a stronger national government, one that many hoped and expected would continue to strengthen as the need for such became more obvious.

Even if all that weren't true, it's incredibly stupid to base a political movement on the idea that a few guys (smart guys to be sure) could somehow design a government that would be equally suitable to an isolated, largely agrarian backwater to a highly sophisticated post industrial superpower.

As you say, a not-especially-close reading of history underscores how stupid that sentimental conception is, which would seem to mean that either the loudest Tea Party exponents are stupid - which seems unlikely - or that they are intentionally pushing the sub-rational buttons of a particular cadre of the politically (and emotionally, and spiritually) conservative.

I think it's the latter, but I don't think there's anything conservative about it. Indeed, I think it's quite the opposite of conservative. That is, the T-Party movement really does have Tom Paine and Robespierre in its political ancestry, not Burke and Madison.

Hence "The Tea Party Jacobins," probably the best thing I've read on the subject.

But while they're incoherent and obnoxious, I do cherish a little hope that just as the Perot movement in '92 helped create space for the Clinton administration and Republican Congress to move toward greater responsibility over the rest of that decade, the 'baggers are inadvertently doing the same with respect to spending. The broad contours of a solution (entitlement adjustments, military spending cuts, tax reform) are so immediately evident that all it will take is a little maturity on the part of the political class.

Then again, watching Hoyer and Boehner hissing at each other on ABC yesterday morning had me aching for Jake Tapper to yell, "This is why the country totally hates you guys."

Lilla better stop stealing my unrealized ideas weeks before I have them. Fucker.

jerseyhoya wrote:Candidate May Have Lied About Heroic Death In Vietnam

"Chris Wilfred is the man for the job," Riggs continued. "God rest his soul."

This can't be true because if it is, well, I don't know how to react.

jerseyhoya wrote:

On a plane from O'Hare to DCA that was already delayed 1 hour...rolled out of the gate and then stopped while trying to get on the runway. The pilot came on and said there were 30 planes ahead of us and we were going to power down for 30 min and wait in line. The seatbelt sign was turned off and passengers walked about. One of the passengers, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, walked to the back of the plane. 5 minutes later the pilot came on the loud speaker and said, "folks we've been given the go ahead to take off." As Leahy walked backed to his seat someone said "thanks Senator!" to which he replied "the pilot said he'd do his best." Chairman Leahy rules!

A Democratic Hill staffer emailed this to Politico approvingly. The mind reels.

uhh, jerz, only thing in the back of the plane are toilets (so I think he was joshing here)

dajafi wrote:Then again, watching Hoyer and Boehner hissing at each other on ABC yesterday morning had me aching for Jake Tapper to yell, "This is why the country totally hates you guys."

I was watching that too. Had Boehner been within arm's reach I'd have removed 3/8" of tan from his entire face.

traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Candidate May Have Lied About Heroic Death In Vietnam

"Chris Wilfred is the man for the job," Riggs continued. "God rest his soul."

This can't be true because if it is, well, I don't know how to react.

please click the link, dave

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

On a plane from O'Hare to DCA that was already delayed 1 hour...rolled out of the gate and then stopped while trying to get on the runway. The pilot came on and said there were 30 planes ahead of us and we were going to power down for 30 min and wait in line. The seatbelt sign was turned off and passengers walked about. One of the passengers, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, walked to the back of the plane. 5 minutes later the pilot came on the loud speaker and said, "folks we've been given the go ahead to take off." As Leahy walked backed to his seat someone said "thanks Senator!" to which he replied "the pilot said he'd do his best." Chairman Leahy rules!

A Democratic Hill staffer emailed this to Politico approvingly. The mind reels.

uhh, jerz, only thing in the back of the plane are toilets (so I think he was joshing here)

So he really exerted some, uh, "influence".

(if it were me, they'd have evacuated the plane)